scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab in advanced triple-negative breast cancer

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee Cheng Phua ◽  
Soo Chin Lee ◽  
Kwong Ng ◽  
Mohamed Ismail Abdul Aziz
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Triple Negative Breast Cancer ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Scenario Analyses ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background The IMpassion130 trial demonstrated that adding atezolizumab to nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel improved the survival of patients with untreated, advanced, programmed death ligand 1 (PDL1)-positive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). In view of the high cost of immunotherapy, it is important to examine its value with respect to both benefits and costs. In this study, the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel combination therapy relative to nab-paclitaxel monotherapy was evaluated for the first-line treatment of advanced, PDL1-positive TNBC, from a healthcare system perspective. Methods A three-state partitioned-survival model was developed to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of treatment with atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel combination therapy with nab-paclitaxel monotherapy in patients with advanced TNBC. Clinical data were obtained from the IMpassion130 trial and extrapolated to 5 years. Health state utilities were retrieved from the literature, while direct costs were sourced from public healthcare institutions in Singapore. The primary outcomes of the model were life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted to explore the impact of specific assumptions and uncertainties. Results Adding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel resulted in an additional 0.361 QALYs (0.636 LYs) at an ICER of S$324,550 per QALY gained. The ICER remained high at $67,092 per QALY even when atezolizumab was priced zero. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the ICER was most sensitive to variations in the cost of atezolizumab and the time horizon. Scenario analyses confirmed that the combination therapy was unlikely to be cost-effective even under extremely favourable assumptions. Conclusions Given the exceedingly high ICER, adding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel was unlikely to represent a cost-effective use of healthcare resources for the treatment of advanced PDL1-positive TNBC. Our findings will be useful in informing funding policy decisions alongside other considerations such as comparative effectiveness, unmet need and budget impact.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab in advanced triple-negative breast cancer

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee Cheng Phua ◽  
Soo Chin Lee ◽  
Kwong Ng ◽  
Mohamed Ismail Abdul Aziz
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Triple Negative Breast Cancer ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Scenario Analyses ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background The IMpassion130 trial demonstrated that adding atezolizumab to nanoparticle albumin-bound (nab)-paclitaxel improved the survival of patients with untreated, advanced, programmed death ligand 1 (PDL1)-positive triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). In view of the high cost of immunotherapy, it is important to examine its value with respect to both benefits and costs. In this study, the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel combination therapy relative to nab-paclitaxel monotherapy was evaluated for the first-line treatment of advanced, PDL1-positive TNBC, from a healthcare system perspective. Methods A three-state partitioned-survival model was developed to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of treatment with atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel combination therapy with nab-paclitaxel monotherapy in patients with advanced TNBC. Clinical data were obtained from the IMpassion130 trial and extrapolated to 5 years. Health state utilities were retrieved from the literature, while direct costs were sourced from public healthcare institutions in Singapore. The primary outcomes of the model were life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario analyses were conducted to explore the impact of specific assumptions and uncertainties. Results Adding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel resulted in an additional 0.361 QALYs (0.636 LYs) at an ICER of S$324,550 per QALY gained. The ICER remained high at $67,092 per QALY even when atezolizumab was priced zero. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the ICER was most sensitive to variations in the cost of atezolizumab and the time horizon. Scenario analyses confirmed that the combination therapy was unlikely to be cost-effective even under extremely favourable assumptions. Conclusions Given the exceedingly high ICER, adding atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel was unlikely to represent a cost-effective use of healthcare resources for the treatment of advanced PDL1-positive TNBC. Our findings will be useful in informing funding policy decisions alongside other considerations such as comparative effectiveness, unmet need and budget impact.

Cost-effectiveness of combined atezolizumab/nab-paclitaxel for advanced triple-negative breast cancer.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19388-e19388
Author(s):  
Mia A Salans ◽  
Daniel R Cherry ◽  
Anthony T Yip ◽  
Patrick T Courtney ◽  
Abhishek Kumar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Triple Negative Breast Cancer ◽  
Stable Disease ◽  
Progressive Disease ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Cost Curve ◽  
The Cost

e19388 Background: The IMpassion 130 trial found prolonged progression-free and overall survival among PD-L1-positive, advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients receiving atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel versus nab-paclitaxel alone. These results were the basis of the first FDA approval of a breast cancer immunotherapeutic agent. With the high cost of combined therapy we present a cost-effectiveness analysis of the addition of atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel for the treatment of advanced TNBC in PD-L1-positive patients. Methods: We constructed a Markov model to simulate cancer progression, survival, and toxicity in advanced TNBC patients receiving atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel compared to nab-paclitaxel alone. Transition probabilities were derived from the IMpassion 130 trial, while costs (in 2019 US dollars) and health utilities were estimated from the literature. Cost effectiveness was assessed with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), expressed as dollar per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), with values of less than $100,000/QALY considered cost effective. We conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to examine model uncertainty. Results: Our base-case model found that treatment with atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel increased overall cost by $120,800 and improved effectiveness by 0.11 QALYs compared with nab-paclitaxel alone, leading to an ICER of $1,101,000/QALY. The base-case model was not sensitive to any single variable. Women in the combined atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel arm spent more time with stable disease before progression and with progressive disease before death compared to those treated with nab-paclitaxel alone. In our base-case analysis the addition of atezolizumab was not cost effective at any price of atezolizumab secondary to the high costs of stable and progressive disease. If we assumed lower costs of stable disease and progression, our model became sensitive to the cost of atezolizumab. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that adding atezolizumab would be cost ineffective 99.9% of the time at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000/QALY. Conclusions: Despite improved clinical outcomes, the addition of atezolizumab would not be considered cost effective in part due to the high costs of stable disease and disease progression among women with advanced TNBC. Novel therapeutics in this costly patient cohort will need to bend the cost curve of stable and progressive disease before becoming cost effective at thresholds acceptable by today’s standards.

Cost-effectiveness of zoledronic (ZOL) acid plus endocrine therapy (ET) in premenopausal women with early breast cancer (EBC) from a Canadian perspective

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 557-557
Author(s):  
K. E. Ougari ◽  
C. Taneja ◽  
O. Sofrygin ◽  
S. Kaura ◽  
T. Delea
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Premenopausal Women ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Healthcare System Perspective ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Canadian Healthcare System ◽  
Canadian Healthcare

557 Background: The Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group Trial 12 (ABCSG-12) examined the efficacy of 3 years (yrs) of treatment with goserelin in combination with ET (anastrozole or tamoxifen) with or without ZOL 4 mg q6 mos in 1,803 premenopausal women with EBC (median age 45 yrs). After a median follow-up of 47.8 mos (max 84 mos), risk of disease-free survival (DFS) events was reduced by 36% (HR = 0.64; p = 0.01) in patients (pts) who received ZOL (ZOL+ET) compared with those who did not (ET). Methods: A Markov model was used to estimate the cost per quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained of 3 years treatment duration of ZOL+ET versus ET-only in premenopausal women with EBC based on results of the ABCSG-12. A Canadian healthcare system perspective and a lifetime timeframe were used. Outcomes and cost of breast cancer recurrence were based on recent published studies. Results were generated under 2 scenarios regarding duration of benefit (reduction in risk of recurrence) with ZOL: (1) Benefits persist to maximum follow-up in ABCSG-12 (trial benefit); (2) Benefits persist until death (lifetime benefit). Results: The cost of 3 years of ZOL (medication and administration) is 4 191 $CDN. Under the lifetime benefit scenario, 73% of these costs are offset by savings in the cost of recurrences. Under the trial benefit scenario, 12% are offset. QALYs gained are 1.63 yrs and 0.52 yrs under the lifetime and trial benefit scenarios respectively; cost-effectiveness is 1 122 $CDN and 3 675 $CDN per QALY gained respectively, which is well below the 50 000 $CDN per QALY threshold frequently used to assess whether therapies are cost-effective. Conclusions: The combination of ZOL + ET is a cost-effective use of healthcare resources from a Canadian healthcare system perspective. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of radiotherapy techniques for whole breast irradiation

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. e0248220
Author(s):  
Yibo Xie ◽  
Beibei Guo ◽  
Rui Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Advanced Technology ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Tumor Control ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Whole Breast Radiotherapy ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

Background The current standard of care (SOC) for whole breast radiotherapy (WBRT) in the US is conventional tangential photon fields. Advanced WBRT techniques may provide similar tumor control and better normal tissue sparing, but it is controversial whether the medical benefits of an advanced technology are significant enough to justify its higher cost. Objective To analyze the cost-effectiveness of six advanced WBRT techniques compared with SOC. Methods We developed a Markov model to simulate health states for one cohort of women (65-year-old) with early-stage breast cancer over 15 years after WBRT. The cost effectiveness analyses of field-in-field (FIF), hybrid intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), full IMRT, standard volumetric modulated arc therapy (STD-VMAT), multiple arc VMAT (MA-VMAT), non-coplanar VMAT (NC-VMAT) compared with SOC were performed with both tumor control and radiogenic side effects considered. Transition probabilities and utilities for each health state were obtained from literature. Costs incurred by payers were adopted from literature and Medicare data. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to evaluate the impact of uncertainties on the final results. Results FIF has the lowest ICER value of 1,511 $/QALY. The one-way analyses show that the cost-effectiveness of advanced WBRT techniques is most sensitive to the probability of developing contralateral breast cancer. PSAs show that SOC is more cost effective than almost all advanced WBRT techniques at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 50,000 $/QALY, while FIF, hybrid IMRT and MA-VMAT are more cost-effective than SOC with a probability of 59.2%, 72.3% and 72.6% at a WTP threshold of 100,000 $/QALY, respectively. Conclusions FIF might be the most cost-effective option for WBRT patients at a WTP threshold of 50,000 $/QALY, while hybrid IMRT and MA-VMAT might be the most cost-effective options at a WTP threshold of 100,000 $/QALY.

scholarly journals The economic impact and cost-effectiveness of combined vector-control and dengue vaccination strategies in Thailand: results from a dynamic transmission model

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (10) ◽  
pp. e0008805
Author(s):  
Gerhart Knerer ◽  
Christine S. M. Currie ◽  
Sally C. Brailsford
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Vector Control ◽  
Dengue Fever ◽  
Control Strategies ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Scenario Analyses ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

Background and aims Dengue fever is a major public health problem in tropical/subtropical regions. Prior economic analyses have predominantly evaluated either vaccination or vector-control programmes in isolation and do not really consider the incremental benefits and cost-effectiveness of mixed strategies and combination control. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of single and combined approaches in Thailand. Methods The impacts of different control interventions were analysed using a previously published mathematical model of dengue epidemiology and control incorporating seasonality, age structure, consecutive infection, cross protection, immune enhancement and combined vector-host transmission. An economic model was applied to simulation results to estimate the cost-effectiveness of 4 interventions and their various combinations (6 strategies): i) routine vaccination of 1-year olds; ii) chemical vector control strategies targeting adult and larval stages separately; iii) environmental management/ public health education and awareness [EM/ PHEA]). Payer and societal perspectives were considered. The health burden of dengue fever was assessed using disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) lost. Costs and effects were assessed for 10 years. Costs were discounted at 3% annually and updated to 2013 United States Dollars. Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out after strategies were rank-ordered by cost, with results presented in a table of incremental analysis. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were undertaken; and the impact and cost-effectiveness of Wolbachia was evaluated in exploratory scenario analyses. Results From the payer and societal perspectives, 2 combination strategies were considered optimal, as all other control strategies were dominated. Vaccination plus adulticide plus EM/ PHEA was deemed cost-effective according to multiple cost-effectiveness criteria. From the societal perspective, incremental differences vs. adulticide and EM/ PHEA resulted in costs of $157.6 million and DALYs lost of 12,599, giving an expected ICER of $12,508 per DALY averted. Exploratory scenario analyses showed Wolbachia to be highly cost-effective ($343 per DALY averted) vs. other single control measures. Conclusions Our model shows that individual interventions can be cost-effective, but that important epidemiological reductions and economic impacts are demonstrated when interventions are combined as part of an integrated approach to combating dengue fever. Exploratory scenario analyses demonstrated the potential epidemiological and cost-effective impact of Wolbachia when deployed at scale on a nationwide basis. Our findings were robust in the face of sensitivity analyses.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of adding atezolizumab to first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 175883592091600
Author(s):  
Bin Wu ◽  
Fei Ma
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Triple Negative Breast Cancer ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Year ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Therapy Cost ◽  
Paclitaxel Treatment

Background: The effectiveness of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel for advanced triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) has been demonstrated. We aimed to evaluate its cost-effectiveness on advanced TNBC from the US payer perspective. Methods: A Markov model was adopted to project the disease course of newly diagnosed advanced TNBC. The clinical data were gathered from the IMpassion130 trial. Cost and health preference data were derived from the literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was measured, and one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed for exploring the model uncertainties. Results: Our results demonstrated that atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel augmented versus nab-paclitaxel therapy cost $104,278 and $149,465 and yielded an additional 0.371 and 0.762 of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in in all patients with unknown PD-L1 status and subpopulation with PD-L1-positive, respectively, which led to an ICER of $281,448 and $196,073 per QALY gained. In all patients with unknown PD-L1 status, atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel treatment guiding by PD-L1 expression testing resulted in an ICER of $183,508 per QALY gained. Atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel could maintain a trend of positive incremental net health benefits and >50% probabilities of cost-effectiveness at the threshold of $200,000/QALY in more than half of subgroups with PD-L1-positive. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses revealed the results were most sensitive to the hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS) of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel versus nab-paclitaxel treatment. Conclusion: The atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel treatment is likely to be a cost-effective option compared with chemotherapy based on nab-paclitaxel for the patients with PD-L1-positive advanced TNBC.

Cost–effectiveness analysis of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel for untreated metastatic triple-negative breast cancer

Immunotherapy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiahao Li ◽  
Tiantian Zhang ◽  
Peiyao Lu ◽  
Jianfu Zhao ◽  
Lin Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Triple Negative Breast Cancer ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Cost Effectiveness Ratio ◽  
First Line ◽  
The Cost ◽  
First Line Treatment

Aim: To evaluate the cost–effectiveness of atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel (ANP) in the first-line treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Materials & methods: We developed a Markov model to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of ANP versus nab-paclitaxel in the first-line treatment of metastatic TNBC. Lifetime costs, life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) were estimated. Results: ANP provided an additional 0.16 QALYs (0.24 LYs) compared with nab-paclitaxel in intention-to-treat population. The corresponding incremental cost–effectiveness ratio was $786,131 per QALY gained. However, the incremental cost–effectiveness ratio decreased to $361,218 per QALY gained in the PD-L1 positive subgroup analysis. Conclusion: From the perspective of a US-payer, ANP is estimated not to be cost-effective in the first-line treatment of metastatic TNBC.

scholarly journals Economic Evaluation of Sacituzumab Govitecan for the Treatment of Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in China and the US

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jigang Chen ◽  
Mingyang Han ◽  
Aihua Liu ◽  
Bo Shi
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Markov Model ◽  
Triple Negative Breast Cancer ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Cost Effective Treatment ◽  
The Us

BackgroundThe effectiveness of Sacituzumab Govitecan (SG) for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) has been demonstrated. We aimed to evaluate its cost-effectiveness on mTNBC from the Chinese and United States (US) perspective.MethodsA partitioned survival model was developed to compare the cost and effectiveness of SG versus single-agent chemotherapy based on clinical data from the ASCENT phase 3 randomized trial. Cost and utility data were obtained from the literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was measured, and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to observe model stability. A Markov model was constructed to validate the results.ResultsIn China, SG yielded an additional 0.35 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) at an additional cost of Chinese Renminbi ¥2257842. The ICER was ¥6375856 ($924037)/QALY. In the US, SG yielded the same additional QALY at an extra cost of $175393 and the ICER was $494479/QALY. Similar results were obtained from the Markov model. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that SG price had the greatest impact on the ICER. PSA showed the probability of SG to be cost-effective when compared with chemotherapy was zero at the current willing-to-pay threshold of ¥217341/QALY and $150000/QALY in China and the US, respectively. The probability of cost-effectiveness of SG would approximate 50% if its price was reduced to ¥10.44/mg in China and $3.65/mg in the US.ConclusionSG is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment of mTNBC at the current price both in China and the US.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness and feasibility of conditional economic incentives and motivational interviewing to improve HIV health outcomes of adolescents living with HIV in Anambra State, Nigeria

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Obinna Ikechukwu Ekwunife ◽  
Chinelo Janefrances Ofomata ◽  
Charles Ebuka Okafor ◽  
Maureen Ugonwa Anetoh ◽  
Stephen Okorafor Kalu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Viral Load ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Service Delivery ◽  
Motivational Interviewing ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Economic Incentives ◽  
Additional Patient ◽  
Incentive Scheme ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background In sub-Saharan Africa, there is increasing mortality and morbidity of adolescents due to poor linkage, retention in HIV care and adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART). This is a result of limited adolescent-centred service delivery interventions. This cost-effectiveness and feasibility study were piggybacked on a cluster-randomized trial that assessed the impact of an adolescent-centred service delivery intervention. The service delivery intervention examined the impact of an incentive scheme consisting of conditional economic incentives and motivational interviewing on the health outcomes of adolescents living with HIV in Nigeria. Method A cost-effectiveness analysis from the healthcare provider’s perspective was performed to assess the cost per additional patient achieving undetected viral load through the proposed intervention. The cost-effectiveness of the incentive scheme over routine care was estimated using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost/patient who achieved an undetectable viral load. We performed a univariate sensitivity analysis to examine the effect of key parameters on the ICER. An in-depth interview was conducted on the healthcare personnel in the intervention arm to explore the feasibility of implementing the service delivery intervention in HIV treatment hospitals in Nigeria. Result The ICER of the Incentive Scheme intervention compared to routine care was US$1419 per additional patient with undetectable viral load. Going by the cost-effectiveness threshold of US$1137 per quality-adjusted life-years suggested by Woods et al., 2016, the intervention was not cost-effective. The sensitivity test showed that the intervention will be cost-effective if the frequency of CD4 count and viral load tests are reduced from quarterly to triannually. Healthcare professionals reported that patients’ acceptance of the intervention was very high. Conclusion The conditional economic incentives and motivational interviewing was not cost-effective, but can become cost-effective if the frequency of HIV quality of life indicator tests are performed 1–3 times per annum. Patients’ acceptance of the intervention was very high. However, healthcare professionals believed that sustaining the intervention may be difficult unless factors such as government commitment and healthcare provider diligence are duly addressed. Trial registration This trial is registered in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry through the WHO International Registry Network (PACTR201806003040425).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document